Politics And Current Events

[MWB]

This is a timeline of what’s happened with Garcia since he entered the US. First, it’s pretty clear that the immigration system in this country is beyond complex. It’s just as clear that he should not have been sent to El Salvador.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

One thing I don’t understand at all and makes this so confusing is that in April of 2019, when ICE rules that he was part of MS-13 (even based on super flimsy evidence), why wasn’t he deported then?

[tifosi77]

The whole 'defying court orders' bit is what's problematic here. The administration didn't just go against the court order that the guy was not to be sent back to El Salvador, they are currently defying the SCOTUS order to 'facilitate' his return -- And however you want to parse the meaning of the word, they simply aren't doing anything to bring the guy back, and the head gangster in charge of El Salvador has said he is 'powerless' to do anything to help even if they do; these two dips**ts fancy themselves such strongmen, but for some reason in this highly specific case where the error is admitted suddenly everyone is the chicken from Moana banging their heads into the walls.

There isn't a lot of grey room for interpretation on the correctness of that imo.

[shafnutz05]

It was sickening to watch how much the two of them were enjoying it yesterday. Someone in the media asked Trump if he will obey the SC order like he promised to do on AF1 a few days prior, and he cut her off and said that it's ridiculous he has to answer those questions. And that smarmy prick Vance sitting there nodding his head vigorously in agreement.

Immediately after, some ass kissing "journalist" (probably from OAN) used their question time to praise Trump for his "investment victory" with Nvidia. Trump immediately said it was a much better question.

MAGA takes sheer delight in being as cruel as possible, which is why I genuinely can't respect anyone that still supports him. I know a lot of it is caused by propaganda but that still makes them rubes that can be appealed to through hatred and bigotry.

[Shyster]

It’s not a straw man. You say that you’re okay with him being sent back, which was to a torture prison. That since he broke that law, that is okay, and not a human rights violation. So if it’s okay he is sent to a torture prison, what else are you okay with regarding illegal immigrants? That was my basic question.

Also, why is it okay to pick and choose which parts of the welfare state’s legal proceedings are followed? He came in illegally (at the age of 16, which should also factor into this). He was caught. He had a hearing and it was stated he couldn’t be sent back to El Salvador. He was given a work permit by the government and was checking in yearly with ICE, as he was told to do. So why should someone in this situation be sent to a prison? Morally, that doesn’t make sense, even if you think it should be fine legally.

I said, "I don't like the fact that he's apparently in prison in El Salvador." I didn't say that I agreed with him being in prison, or that he should be there, or that I support all illegal immigrants being sent to prisons in their home countries. I just said that I don't think he has any right to be here.

If being from a crappy country that abuses its citizens were grounds to come to and stay in the US, then like a quarter of the global population would have a right to move here. We are not responsible for the government of El Salvador, and the fact that El Salvador treats its people badly does not, in my book, justify someone breaking our laws to stay here. Does that mean that I want anyone to be sent to a torture prison? No, of course not. It just means that I don't think they have a right to be here.

[CBear3]

...because of the welfare state, because you already supported open borders in your libertarian utopia scenario.
You're claim is that because your taxes are used to support "others," that "others" can't be unlimited. So those promises to all of our ancestries of freedom, the American dream, "give me your huddled masses," etc. when immigrating, that social contract is no longer valid because of the creation of various social programs dating back at least to FDR's SSA in 1935?

[Shyster]

...because of the welfare state, because you already supported open borders in your libertarian utopia scenario.
You're claim is that because your taxes are used to support "others," that "others" can't be unlimited. So those promises to all of our ancestries of freedom, the American dream, "give me your huddled masses," etc. when immigrating, that social contract is no longer valid because of the creation of various social programs dating back at least to FDR's SSA in 1935?

A poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty doesn't represent enforceable policy. Neither does the poem say anything about being able to sign up to get free stuff once you get here. And any system where people can come in and demand benefits without being able or required to contibute to pay for them is one destined to collapse.

[Troy Loney]

What gain are we striving for to reintroduce death by measles?

[meow]

Land of the free to die to preventable disease

[tifosi77]

A poem is not enforceable policy. But the poem exists as the embodiment of an ideal that underpins one of the fundamental organizing principals of American society going back to the f**king Pilgrims. With exceedingly few exceptions, everybody here is of immigrant stock. All of us. Some more recently than others.

But the discussion about the particulars of this particular migrant's case is kind of missing the forest for the trees imo. The deed is done, they've said that even if El Jefe in his benign wisdom releases the guy from slave prison they will just deport him to another country as soon as he's brought back to US soil. They've already flouted two separate court orders - one from SCOTUS - and have openly discussed the idea of selling uppity citizens into like slavery.

[Shyster]

I said clearly on the last page that I am, in fact, a propoent of greatly increased immigration. I would, in fact, prefer totally open borders. I simply do not believe that we can have totally open borders so long as we have a welfare state, because the influx that would result from opening the borders would bankrupt the government (well, even faster than it's already going bankrupt) at pretty much every level, and government would respond by either taxing us out the wazoo or wrecking the currency.

I appreciate that the folks in here have driven away all of the actual Republican posters who used to regularly frequent in this thread, so I'm apparantly the next-best thing for people to hate and poop on, but some of you are reeeeaaaally stretching to come up with attacks on me. So let me be perfectly clear: I LIKE IMMIGRATION. I SUPPORT MORE LEGAL IMMIGRATION. I THINK THE NUMBER OF LEGAL IMMIGRANTS WE LET IN IS WAY TOO LOW AND SHOULD BE GREATLY INCREASED.

[Trip McNeely]

Most of the republican posters on this board didn’t leave; they just realized how insane current republican ideology is and now you consider them liberals. It’s not an us problem here, it’s a you problem.

Shaf is the perfect example of that

[MR25]

Also, as far as I am aware, the ones that did actually "leave" did not do so voluntarily (grunty, NP, EPP)

[MWB]

It’s not a straw man. You say that you’re okay with him being sent back, which was to a torture prison. That since he broke that law, that is okay, and not a human rights violation. So if it’s okay he is sent to a torture prison, what else are you okay with regarding illegal immigrants? That was my basic question.

Also, why is it okay to pick and choose which parts of the welfare state’s legal proceedings are followed? He came in illegally (at the age of 16, which should also factor into this). He was caught. He had a hearing and it was stated he couldn’t be sent back to El Salvador. He was given a work permit by the government and was checking in yearly with ICE, as he was told to do. So why should someone in this situation be sent to a prison? Morally, that doesn’t make sense, even if you think it should be fine legally.

I said, "I don't like the fact that he's apparently in prison in El Salvador." I didn't say that I agreed with him being in prison, or that he should be there, or that I support all illegal immigrants being sent to prisons in their home countries. I just said that I don't think he has any right to be here.

If being from a crappy country that abuses its citizens were grounds to come to and stay in the US, then like a quarter of the global population would have a right to move here. We are not responsible for the government of El Salvador, and the fact that El Salvador treats its people badly does not, in my book, justify someone breaking our laws to stay here. Does that mean that I want anyone to be sent to a torture prison? No, of course not. It just means that I don't think they have a right to be here.

But this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s what actually happened. So when you are okay with him being sent back, and sent back means going to a torture prison, it’s kinda like you’re okay with it. This is where the black/white of legal meets the ambiguity morality. It strikes me as odd that someone who consistently espouses individual rights pushes that to the side because someone entered illegally.

Also, why is it okay to pick and choose which parts of the welfare state’s legal proceedings are followed?

[faftorial]

Also, as far as I am aware, the ones that did actually "leave" did not do so voluntarily (grunty, NP, EPP)

As far as I know, NP left voluntarily and is still a member.

c2i, correct me if I'm wrong.

[count2infinity]

I believe that’s correct. I can look later.

[NAN]

Most of the republican posters on this board didn’t leave; they just realized how insane current republican ideology is and now you consider them liberals. It’s not an us problem here, it’s a you problem.

Shaf is the perfect example of that

I think you are all nuts

[count2infinity]

Nan thinks about our nuts.

[NAN]

Nan thinks about our nuts.

And……

[meow]

I left the republican party on january 7, 2021 and haven’t looked back

[Shyster]

But this isn’t a hypothetical, it’s what actually happened. So when you are okay with him being sent back, and sent back means going to a torture prison, it’s kinda like you’re okay with it. This is where the black/white of legal meets the ambiguity morality. It strikes me as odd that someone who consistently espouses individual rights pushes that to the side because someone entered illegally.

I have said repeatedly that I do not agree with him being sent to a prison. I just don't think he has a right to be here. That doesn't mean that he belongs in prison anywhere. That just means that I think he should be not here. "Not here" ≠ "torture prison" There are 34 other counties in North and South America. If we exclude El Salvador and its torture prisons, that leaves 33 options for "not here" without even leaving this hemisphere.

This may come as a shock, but one can believe in individual rights and also believe that people shouldn't break the law, particularly when the law is not violative of individual rights (I am not an anarchist). I do not believe there is a right for non-citzens of the US to come to and live in the US. So requiring people who want to come to and live in the US to follow immigration laws and procedures does not violate any individual rights.

[willeyeam]

Checking in as a former Republican and member of College Republicans

[tifosi77]

I am also a former Republican.

Granted that was almost 30 years ago.

[shafnutz05]

https://archive.is/GdGKj

We are so ****

At around noon on 14 April, 2025, America ceased to have a law-abiding government. Some would argue that had already happened on 20 January, when Donald Trump was inaugurated. On Monday, however, Trump chose to ignore a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling to repatriate an illegally deported man. He even claimed the judges ruled in his favour. The US president’s middle finger to the court was echoed by his attorney-general, secretary of state, vice-president and El Salvador’s vigilante president Nayib Bukele. The latter is playing host to what resembles an embryonic US gulag.

In terms of clarifying moments, Trump’s meeting with Bukele compares with his dressing down of Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy in late February. Zelenskyy was berated for being insufficiently thankful for US military aid and for failing to wear a suit. A tieless Bukele, by contrast, got royal treatment. Trump’s team nodded when Bukele said he would not consider returning the wrongful deportee, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. All baselessly agreed that Garcia was in fact a terrorist. The Oval Office drama offered a civics lesson to the world: America’s government pays greater respect to a foreign strongman than its own Supreme Court.

[eddy]

Let me guess, nothing with happen?